The Death of the CD?

[jayne lee wilson]

...On the LIM XRCD24 it CERTAINLY is! Wow! Great credit to the mastering engineers from San Francisco to Yokohama!

I'll look out for the Fantastique second hand somewhere. I listened to Espana yesterday, and very good it is, although the recording is not one of Decca's best in comparison with some of their other very early issues.

[old khayyam]

escapist music / invasive music

As a devotee of English music I can't help but think of all the wonderful music that's been made available in recent years by the likes of Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion, Dutton, etc. none of which is available on vinyl. Great new recordings of composers such as Alwyn, Gardner, Moeran, Rubbra, Berkeley (father and son), Dyson, Bowen and many more (good luck getting Brian's 'Gothic' Symphony on vinyl!). Not to mention excellent new recordings of RVW, Bax, Elgar and the likes by Hickox, Handley, Davis, etc.

Then there's the fine recordings of Mahler by Abbado, Chailly and others. Not to mention the developments in HIPP.

I could go on.

Hmm, yes, i'll take your word for that. But there is another dimension to my argument: What i see as the decline in music of historical value also happens to coincide with such overwhelming advances of technology that i cant trust any recordings made after about 1984, unless i'm looking for immersion in a wash of reverb, gates, limiters, and compressed sounds. In other words, since the 1980s, i have had trouble hearing the music through the studio which, as they justifiably say, has become an instrument in itself. Even now that the days of digital reverb (set to 'cathedral sound') are mostly gone, that which we now consider 'real', whilst stripped of artificial reverberation, is now stifled in artificial reality.

Talk about hearing/feeling certain frequency ranges on CD, and i hear nothing. What i have noticed is a souless, stifled, claustrophobic sound. Never has music been so processed and sonically packaged as now. From the components in the microphones to the barely moving speakers (never mind breaking it down into digital code), the music has no opportunity to breathe.
If someone were to stand up and say 'but this recording feels quite fresh and airy', i'd say yes, that recording sounds fresh and airy, but it has been cleverly engineered to create that effect. It is not actually fresh and airy.

(It is a known fact that recording studios used to be large spaces, each designed for its own unique acoustic character, whilst the control room was a small functional room on one side. These days, the musicians play in a small 'dead-room', and any character is added digitally in the huge control-room.)


Another good point i'd like to make regards the phrase 'its as if the musicians are in the room'. This, i believe, is a false god. This justifies the making of recordings with no character, because you want the listener to imagine the violinist, etc, is in the room with them, and you cant possibly know in which room they are sitting, so you make a 'neutral' recording to suit all listeners.

I prefer recordings where i feel i am in the room with them. I want to go to the music, not have the music come to me. I want to escape into the music, not be invaded by it.

I've not been able to find an 'escapist' recording made after the early 80s. Up to and including the 1960s, it was all you could get. The 1970s were a mixed era where there seemed to be a balance between organic recording and advanced technology.

I have a recording of Carlos Montoya playing in the caves of SacreMonte in the 1960s, and it actually sounds like Carlos Montoya, it sounds like a cave, and it sounds like the 1960s. If i played you a recording of, say, Nigel Kennedy in, say, Westminster Abbey in, say, the 1990s, i suggest you would have trouble identifying the venue, the era, and possibly the soloist.

In short, i find recordings from the CD era to be rather over-processed products and nothing to treasure.


(Ps, i'm speaking generally and i'm sure there are many holes that may be picked out.)

[Bryn]

Hmm,... out.)

What a lot of tommyrot! You appear to be confusing the pop industry with the approach to recording taken by most engineers re. the 'classical' repertoire. As to 'in the same room'. I associate that phrase not with recent recordings but with the early electrical ones made in the 1930s.

[Roehre]

Hmm, yes, i'll take your word for that.
In short, i find recordings from the CD era to be rather over-processed products and nothing to treasure.
(Ps, i'm speaking generally and i'm sure there are many holes that may be picked out.)

I still prefer having the opportunity to listen to "over-processed" recordings of otherwise previously neglected works to pre-1984 recorded war horses I'm afraid.

It's the music I'm interested in, preferably well performed and well recorded.
The only place and time I trust my ears anyway is a live concert. Any other time and place (i.e. using any recording and reproducing device of whatever quality) is by definition a travesty in one way or another.

[amateur51]

I still prefer having the opportunity to listen to "over-processed" recordings of otherwise previously neglected works to pre-1984 recorded war horses I'm afraid.

It's the music I'm interested in, preferably well performed and well recorded.
The only place and time I trust my ears anyway is a live concert. Any other time and place (i.e. using any recording and reproducing device of whatever quality) is by definition a travesty in one way or another.

I think 'travesty' is a bit tough - they're almost entirely different experiences (I don't necessarily have a shower, a shave & put on a clean shirt tbefore I put on a CD ) and I treasure them both. I am fortunate in having such dodgy hearing that my brain has taught itself to fill in all and exclude all sorts of accidents of balance, acoustic etc that within 5 seconds almost any recording becomes 'normal'

[Bryn]

I think 'travesty' is a bit tough - they're almost entirely different experiences (I don't necessarily have a shower, a shave & put on a clean shirt tbefore I put on a CD ) and I treasure them both. I am fortunate in having such dodgy hearing that my brain has taught itself to fill in all and exclude all sorts of accidents of balance, acoustic etc that within 5 seconds almost any recording becomes 'normal'

Also, quite a few concert venues I have attended over the decades have managed to mangle to sound by their own acoustic properties. No need for modern sophisticated electronic intervention to make a mess of the received sound quality.

[old khayyam]

What a lot of tommyrot! You appear to be confusing the pop industry with the approach to recording taken by most engineers re. the 'classical' repertoire. As to 'in the same room'. I associate that phrase not with recent recordings but with the early electrical ones made in the 1930s.

Quite the kneejerk i was expecting. In fact the "pop" industry saw the problem some years ago when a movement known as 'lo-fi' became fashionable in the 90s as a reaction against over-polished pop of the 80s.

In the 'classical' world, no such movement would be embraced as we see ourselves as having 'class', and therefore the music must be polished. At first the simple answer was to gloss it over with digital reverb. Now, that has become dated, but dont believe for a nano-minute that your Naxos CD hasnt had every single frequency processed to within an inch of its life by digital technology.

Another way of putting it is that the technology involved has far surpassed its initial goals of 'fidelity' to the original sound source or instrument. If the player really was in the room with me, it would sound nothing like the product that comes out of a CD, although we'd like to believe otherwise.

If you think about it, the best way to make it sound like its in the room with you is to actually have it in the room with you. Given that you cant, and it has to be recorded on a medium, it is logical to expect the least possible technology between you and the instrument. But we are being sold decades of devices all intended to make it sound more real.

So on reflection, when i listen to my golden recordings of Segovia from the 1960s, his guitar-sound bouncing off the walls of whichever room it was recorded, that is much closer to how i hear music in real life.

[Ferretfancy]

old khayyam

I do have a lot of sympathy for your point of view about the overuse of technology, but perhaps you overlook a few points. I look back on the early stereo era as a bit of a golden age, but back then recording was a more leisurely process. Classical sessions are now very costly, and it seems that there is less time available for engineers to get it exactly right, hence the recourse to multi-track mixes and a plethora of microphones. Before digital technology was developed, there were constraints where multi- tracking was concerned,the main one being the relentless build up of tape noise and losses in the copying process. I struggled myself to keep this under control when mixing documentaries and drama, but the problem is greater for music.

The very limitations of the medium meant that earlier engineers did their best to keep it simple, and thus avoided the need for multi-tracking. To my ears, the errors in phase on modern recordings really show up on good equipment, with fuzzy string sound and unreal perspectives on orchestral sound in particular. Instrumental and chamber music suffers far less, due to its smaller scale.

Incidentally, I smiled at an earlier comment from a contributor who stated a preference for older recordings, the ones in question dating from the 1980's! We are all far too willing to believe that the latest is the best, it's worth remembering that the Decca Rheingold used a nine channel mixer back in 1958, and it still has its attractions.

[Bryn]

There are some pretty horrendous older recordings (just think of those RCA Toscanini jobs) and some equally horrendous modern recordings. The phase problems with all too many multi-miked recordings I can identify with, but not all modern recordings are so made, and many are recorded in venues with particularly fine acoustic properties. When it comes to guitar, I find many of the recordings of Tom Kerstans's recordings to capture his sound superbly. Rather better, to my ears at least, than Decca managed with Segovia's.

The misuse of processing can indeed bring very nasty results. You have only to think of Proms 1 and 4 from last year when the outsourced engineers used by Radio 3 applied heavy dynamic limiting to the mix. When it came to issuing the BBC's recording of Brian's 'Gothic' on CD, Hyperion's engineers made sterling efforts to overcome the mess that the engineers used by the Beeb had made of it, but even though many hours of studio time (and money) were spent in their endeavours, the mark of the beastly limiter remains, though somewhat ameliorated. Here was a case where modern processing techniques at least somewhat saved the day. I also think of the very fine work engineers like Sebastian Lexer have done with live recordings such as that of John Tilbury playing Feldman and Skempton at St. John's, Smith Square. What 1960's engineer could have sensitively removed the mobile 'phone ring or roar of a passing motorcyclist as Sebastian did, using modern digital techniques? Or again the way he managed to expunge the sound of the car crash from his recording of a Feldman chamber concert in Huddersfield?

[John Skelton]

(It is a known fact that recording studios used to be large spaces, each designed for its own unique acoustic character, whilst the control room was a small functional room on one side. These days, the musicians play in a small 'dead-room', and any character is added digitally in the huge control-room.)

Except when they are playing in a church, or another acoustic space outside a purpose built "recording studio", which is a very common occurrence; except when you can hear the unique acoustic character of that space (not necessarily a space that suits the music as well as another space, of course), the reverb, the music bouncing off the walls etc., and the unique ambient sounds, like birdsong.

Given my view that no music of historical value has been made for some decades now (with a few exceptions)

What a load of

.

[amateur51]

There are some pretty horrendous older recordings (just think of those RCA Toscanini jobs) and some equally horrendous modern recordings. The phase problems with all too many multi-miked recordings I can identify with, but not all modern recordings are so made, and many are recorded in venues with particularly fine acoustic properties. When it comes to guitar, I find many of the recordings of Tom Kerstans's recordings to capture his sound superbly. Rather better, to my ears at least, than Decca managed with Segovia's.

The misuse of processing can indeed bring very nasty results. You have only to think of Proms 1 and 4 from last year when the outsourced engineers used by Radio 3 applied heavy dynamic limiting to the mix. When it came to issuing the BBC's recording of Brian's 'Gothic' on CD, Hyperion's engineers made sterling efforts to overcome the mess that the engineers used by the Beeb had made of it, but even though many hours of studio time (and money) were spent in their endeavours, the mark of the beastly limiter remains, though somewhat ameliorated. Here was a case where modern processing techniques at least somewhat saved the day. I also think of the very fine work engineers like Sebastian Lexer have done with live recordings such as that of John Tilbury playing Feldman and Skempton at St. John's, Smith Square. What 1960's engineer could have sensitively removed the mobile 'phone ring or roar of a passing motorcyclist as Sebastian did, using modern digital techniques? Or again the way he managed to expunge the sound of the car crash from his recording of a Feldman chamber concert in Huddersfield?

Interesting stuff, Bryn

Another more mundane example is the splendid (to my ears) job that Pristine Classical has done on Schnabel's 1930s EMI recordings of Beethoven piano sonatas - so much extraneous noise has been eliminated without bringing the audio ceiling down to nwear head height, and I am able to listen to these extraordinary performances as never before. For that I very grateful

http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Keyboard/PAKM040.php

[old khayyam]

Except when they are playing in a church

Point already covered above. (see 'nigel kennedy')

"Given my view that no music of historical value has been made for some decades now (with a few exceptions)"

What a load of

...'opinion'.

"Exceptions" already covered above.

[John Skelton]

Point already covered above. (see 'nigel kennedy')

It would only "cover" the point if you gave any indication that you had listened to many recent recordings of anything other than the occasional 'big label' chart topper (see Nigel Kennedy).

...'opinion'.

Quite. Opinion which would only mean something if you gave any indication that you had actually listened to much music written in the last 20 or so years.

[Stunsworth]

(It is a known fact that recording studios used to be large spaces, each designed for its own unique acoustic character, whilst the control room was a small functional room on one side. These days, the musicians play in a small 'dead-room', and any character is added digitally in the huge control-room.)

That may occasionally happen, but a quick scan of the recording venues on the back of CDs shows that as a generalisation it's completely wrong and that most orchestral classical recording take place in a concert hall or large studio.

[John Skelton]

That may occasionally happen, but a quick scan of the recording venues on the back of CDs shows that as a generalisation it's completely wrong and that most orchestral classical recording take place in a concert hall or large studio.

Many recordings of early music that I know were made in churches or 'appropriate' halls, not in purpose built recording studios. Sometimes the acoustic isn't that suitable (away from early music as such to my taste too many recordings of string quartets are made in churches, ditto piano recordings). The character of the acoustic is palpably 'there' and often 'ambient' sounds also: I know many early music recordings where the birds joining in are (a) clearly audible and (b) audible in a 'natural' sonic perspective. There are plenty of poorly engineered recordings and plenty of over-produced recordings, but in my experience they don't constitute the majority. I'm less familiar with the output of the 'major' labels or the rump of the 'major' labels than I am with the 'independents'.

[edit: it is, of course, perfectly possible to make a fine recording in a studio. And it's also the case that certain 'natural' recording perspectives wouldn't necessarily work for some new music]